Guyton v. State

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Guyton v. State

109 S.E. 520, 27 Ga. App. 639, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 332

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 17, 1921

Docket12785

StatusPublished

This text of 109 S.E. 520 (Guyton v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guyton v. State, 109 S.E. 520, 27 Ga. App. 639, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 332 (Ga. Ct. App. 1921).

Pincite

Opinion

Bloodworth, J.

1. Three men were at a distillery. As certain officers approached, two of them ran, but the defendant remained. He gave a reasonable explanation of his presence there. It was not shown that he had any interest in the “ still,” or that he was making liquor, or was in any way engaged in aiding or assisting in the manufacture of liquor. Under the evidence his conviction was unauthorized. The evidence which connected the defendant with the offense charged was entirely circumstantial, and did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. Ward v. State, 21 Ga. App. 655 (91 S. E. 816); Smith v. State, 16 Ga. App. 291 (85 S. E. 281). The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

2. The above ruling is controlling, and it is unnecessary to consider the amendment to the motion for a now trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bloodworth, J.

1. Three men were at a distillery. As certain officers approached, two of them ran, but the defendant remained. He gave a reasonable explanation of his presence there. It was not shown that he had any interest in the “ still,” or that he was making liquor, or was in any way engaged in aiding or assisting in the manufacture of liquor. Under the evidence his conviction was unauthorized. The evidence which connected the defendant with the offense charged was entirely circumstantial, and did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt. Ward v. State, 21 Ga. App. 655 (91 S. E. 816); Smith v. State, 16 Ga. App. 291 (85 S. E. 281). The court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.

2. The above ruling is controlling, and it is unnecessary to consider the amendment to the motion for a now trial.

Judgment reversed.

Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 S.E. 520, 27 Ga. App. 639, 1921 Ga. App. LEXIS 332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guyton-v-state-gactapp-1921.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack